Search form

The Real Axis of Evil

In his 2002 State of the Union address, President
Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an axis of evil, “arming
to threaten the peace of the world.” The charge leveled at those
countries concerned their development of weapons of mass
destruction and whether “they could provide these arms to
terrorists.” From the start, North Korea was the “odd man out”
because it had little in common with the other two axis members.
Now that the war in Iraq is ending, it’s clear who the real axis of
evil is: Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

The current rhetoric about Syria is déjà vu. It’s almost like an
instant replay of what was said about Iraq. Syria has weapons of
mass destruction. Syria supports and harbors terrorists. Add to
this the claims that Syria supplied the Iraqi military with night
vision goggles and allowed Islamic fighters to cross the border to
fight against U.S. forces, and that Syria has allowed Iraqi leaders
(perhaps even Saddam Hussein himself) to flee across its
border.

Some of the accusations by the Bush administration include the
following: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that
Syria is “behaving badly” and that “there’s got to be change in
Syria.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, “the Syrians need
to know … they’ll be held accountable.” Secretary of State Colin
Powell said that Syria “should review their actions and their
behavior” and that the administration will “examine possible
measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature.” White House
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, “Syria needs to cooperate” and
that “rogue nations need to clean up their act.” And President Bush
said he believes that “there are chemical weapons in Syria” and
that he is “serious about stopping the spread of weapons of mass
destruction.” It’s clear where all this is leading. It seems that
the drums of war are beating, again. Maybe not for an immediate
invasion of Syria. But it lays the groundwork for a future
invasion.

To be sure, Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have
given assurances that there are no war plans for military action
against Syria right now. But the same thing was said about Iraq
last summer. And the Pentagon undoubtedly has contingency plans
that could be used for Syria.

Many people were willing to support U.S. military action against
Iraq because they thought the policy was just about Iraq. But Iraq
was never just about getting rid of Saddam. Just prior to going to
war, President Bush unveiled what the U.S. policy was about. In
February, he argued that Iraq was a first step “in the spread of
democratic values” and the beginning of “a new stage in Middle East
peace.” Ultimately, the war on Iraq is the implementation of the
new U.S. national security strategy “based on a distinctly American
internationalism” designed to “make the world not just safer but
better.”

So it should come as no surprise that the task at hand is still
incomplete and that Syria is a likely next target. The reasoning
follows a parallel path to Iraq. Because the first Gulf War left
Hussein in power, there was unfinished business that necessitated
the current U.S. military action. It would be imprudent to allow
the same thing to happen again. If Syria is harboring Iraqi
leaders, building weapons of mass destruction (the Israelis have
accused Iraq of transferring missiles and weapons of mass
destruction into Syria), and supporting and harboring terrorists
(even if those terrorist groups — Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic
Jihad — do not currently attack the United States), then U.S.
national security would demand that the U.S. military continue down
the road to Damascus.

The truth is — much like Iraq — that Syria’s weapons of mass
destruction and support for terrorism do not represent a direct
threat to the United States. And rather than trying to beat Syria
into submission and increasing the U.S. military presence in the
region, the administration needs to develop an exit strategy to
remove U.S. troops from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. That will
do more to lessen the threat of terrorism against America than
regime change in Damascus.